…and this is a 
One difference: these zombies are repelled by brains
Category: Creationism
Posted on: October 31, 2008 1:00 PM, by PZ Myers
I knew there was a creationist connection to Halloween. Glenn Branch figured it out:
When the distinguished philosopher Philip Kitcher recently addressed the creationist movement in his Living With Darwin, he judiciously assessed creationism in its latest incarnation as historically respectable but currently bankrupt, and proposed to describe it as "dead" science. "In light of its shambling tenacity," I replied, "'zombie science' is perhaps a preferable label."
Read the rest for the real horror story — the zombies have taken over the Texas educational system.
Comments
Posted by: AH | October 31, 2008 1:10 PM
I miss that WoW zombie plague! It was awesome.
I feel a little guilty escaping from Texas and registering to vote in Minnesota, because now there's little I can do to stop that, although I still get all the Texas Democrats emails. I feel ashamed reading the article...
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 31, 2008 1:13 PM
Still, they'll take on brains, and try to reduce them to unthinking repetition and ancient superstition.
So even though they're repelled by brains, they do try to save us all from the burden of intelligence. Their bravery is a matter of facing their enemy, the brain, and turning it into a liquid which dissolves in cerebral fluid (Egnor, otoh, turns brain into "spirit," which simply leaks through the skull into the nothingness of space).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: braiiiiiiiiins | October 31, 2008 1:14 PM
I think I would like to see the phrase "zombie science" stick to one or more of the non-science movements, mostly because it sounds so much cooler than just pseudoscience. Whether it would apply best to creationism, anti-vaccines, homeopaths, or anti-global warming, or a combination of those, is still up for debate.
Posted by: E.V. | October 31, 2008 1:16 PM
Ugh. I can't read that shit without fantasizing about McLeroy and his cohorts getting ass-cancer and and having to resign.
Posted by: Eric | October 31, 2008 1:22 PM
The sad part is.. I recognize the room that the WoW picture was taken in. I remember fighting those very zombies in that room.
Posted by: Shaden Freud | October 31, 2008 1:22 PM
I guess that would make the Discovery Institute a less-powerful version of the Umbrella Corporation.
Posted by: Hap | October 31, 2008 1:28 PM
How can something be a zombie if it was never alive? I thought that creationism only came into being when there was enough scientific evidence to disprove it, and thus requiring desperate measures to sustain Biblical interpretation inconsistent with observable reality. If creationism was ever born, it was born morally and intellectually vacant. Anencephalic babies don't survive very long in the wild.
Creationism is closer to a virus or a virion than an actual macroscopic life. My guess would be rabies (and one consistent with the behavior it causes). The morally bankrupt are those that continue to unleash it upon others when (based on the inconsistency of their actions and beliefs) they don't believe it themselves.
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 31, 2008 1:34 PM
.....assessed creationism in its latest incarnation as historically respectable but currently bankrupt, and proposed to describe it as "dead" science. "In light of its shambling tenacity," I replied, "'zombie science' is perhaps a preferable label."
No it isn't! Creationism is magic, it's not any kind of real science. It misappropriates the terminology of science, & borrows some of the findings to make a spurious claim for scientific respectability, but that makes it pseudo-science at best, & pseudo-science is not science, & in this case it's merely dressed-up magic.
Posted by: blueelm | October 31, 2008 1:35 PM
Shame doesn't even cover it.
My own science education in Texas public schools was shameful. Perpetuating these bad ideas is morally corrupt IMO.
It doesn't do anyone any good all to let the quality of education go in order to pander to popular belief.
Posted by: Rick S. | October 31, 2008 1:40 PM
Really PZ...this woman needs to have her ass handed to her...especially after she spews ignorant drivel about Richard Dawkins in her latest blog post.
(The blog post is talking about Dawkins hurting our children:)
"Dawkins is determined to challenge the myths of children's literature; you know, that dangerous stuff about talking animals and girls who visit Emerald Cities to see the great Oz. In his new book, he will advise children on how to think about the world, using "science thinking contrasted with mythical thinking," according to the Telegraph." she goes on from there...
I've left my hammer marks on her skull. I wish others here would do the same and keep it up.
Posted by: jimellismusic | October 31, 2008 1:44 PM
What would then happen to the perceived value of a Texas science student trying to get into a good pre-med or any other science college for that matter. I have worked in my lifetime on a reasonable definition of evil, meaning a consistently useful one, not an absolute, and it is "unnecessary harm". My father was a Methodist minister and would probably give them the "road to hell is paved with good intentions" sermon, but I believe that these people are actually broken in some very real way.
nothin' but luv
jim
Posted by: Bronze Dog | October 31, 2008 1:58 PM
The scary thing about being here in Texas: The zombies are more likely to be the ones wielding the shotguns.
Posted by: Nerdette | October 31, 2008 1:59 PM
Wait, wait, wait, WoW is the Texas Education System? Explains why the laws of physics and biological reasoning are skewed (It's magic!), and why I have a growing love of shooting things...
Posted by: Jello | October 31, 2008 2:08 PM
"The scary thing about being here in Texas: The zombies are more likely to be the ones wielding the shotguns."
And the AK-47s and the MP-5s and whatever else they can get their hands on.
Posted by: Scott D. | October 31, 2008 2:09 PM
Glenn branch is a bit behind the times. The creationists are moving away from "teach both sides" to their new "academic freedom" approach.
New clothing, same corpse.
Posted by: Che | October 31, 2008 2:10 PM
Hey guys check this out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3328480/Otto-the-octopus-wrecks-havoc.html
Posted by: uncle noel | October 31, 2008 2:27 PM
"the zombies have taken over the Texas educational system"
They haven't eaten our brains yet; they're just beating on the doors and peering in the windows.
Posted by: amphiox | October 31, 2008 2:31 PM
On whether or not creationism was ever historically a legitimate science, re #7 and #8, I think much depends on exactly what you mean by "creationism" as well as "science."
Creationism in broad terms was humanity's first attempt to explain observed reality. I don't think it is unfair to call that a "pre-science" or "proto-science". Given our understanding of natural processes at that time, and our experience with and observation of our own creative abilities, deliberate assembly by an intelligent agency was not an unreasonable first hypothesis.
When biology in a recognizably modern form first began in Europe in the 18th century, biblical creationism was in fact what the scientists of the day used as their working paradigm. And it did not take very long for the weight of contradictory evidence to accumulate sufficiently to kill creationism as a reasonable hypothesis. When this happened, the biologists of the day did what scientists still do when their hypotheses fail. The first tried to modify, then, ultimately, they discarded, their theory when a new and better theory was proposed.
However, I do not think it can reasonably be argued that the modern form of creationism has anything to do with its historical predecessor, which died a legitimate death perhaps one or two decades before Charles Darwin was born. Modern creationism is a pack of deliberate lies stitched together by a dishonest cadre of schemers whose basic goal is the destruction of science itself.
It isn't so much a zombie as Frankenstein's monster. (Except that Frankenstein's monster started out good.)
Posted by: newfie | October 31, 2008 2:33 PM
Premise:
Most of these fundie wackaloons aren't. They are actually trying to undermine science and being paid handsomely by people who want to control others. Be it the churches, places like the Discovery Institute, book publishers, or other interests who seek to keep the population dumb, and keep the money rolling in.
Action:
In the spirit of Michele Bachman, the media (or other agency) should do an expose on these groups, and actually learn what their methods and intents are. If actual conversations and documents were exposed, to show those people who are actively pushing for Intelligent Design - Creationism for what they really are, and what they actually believe, it could open a lot of eyes, and minds.
Possible positive outcome:
Evolution is compatible with faith to many religious people, but when the people they trust are shown for the frauds that they are, people will start questioning and thinking for themselves.
Now, who wants the job of infiltrating these places and getting the goods?
Posted by: FastLane | October 31, 2008 2:35 PM
Che, that octopus story is awesome!!
Posted by: Darth Wader | October 31, 2008 2:40 PM
Sweet Zombie Jesus! Do the the christians know about this?
oh and John McCain wishes you a happy halloween;
http://happysphere.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/im-not-clever-when-writing/
Posted by: Ranxerox | October 31, 2008 2:44 PM
Otto'pus is amazing.
I'll bet a Fundy that he has more intelligence than say... Certain Texas School Board Members.
Posted by: Hap | October 31, 2008 2:46 PM
#18: Sorry. I was thinking of the current version of creationism without thinking about its historical antecedent.
Posted by: Rob Bos | October 31, 2008 2:48 PM
Ah, Scholomance.
Those zombies explode.
Posted by: Johan Swart | October 31, 2008 2:49 PM
Now I see the latest ad hominem attack on advocates of honest science. They are zombies!
"Remember the big stir about Lenski's 20 year experiment with E. coli where the bugs "evolved" the ability to digest lactose citrate and this was touted as overwhelming evidence of evolution? And remember our response that until the mechanism behind it was discovered that it might not be much "evolution" at all?
As usual, we are vindicated. In a similar case where it's lactose instead of citrate the bug was all set up, in fact one might say front loaded, with the capacity to switch over from glucose to lactose digestion. Essentially the bug constantly samples the level of lactose in its environment and when the level reaches a tipping point a single "throw of the dice" switches it over from glucose to lactose digestion. This is contrary to Lenski's hypothesis that a series of dice throws, each making a small change towards ability to digest lactose citrate, accumulate until lactose citrate digestion is fully switched on. Darwinian gradualism is denied once again and we see a front loaded genome switch to a new mode of operation through a saltational event.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lactose-digestion-in-e-coli/ "
....whoops
I was waiting for this day, :) I knew there would be a natural explanation! Zombies can't write this kind of things. :P
"A favorite scenario for molecular evolution is that a gene gets duplicated and then gradually mutates to become something useful that did not exist before. Such a proposed scenario does not constitute evidence for evolution, it proves nothing, and indeed such a scenario itself requires proof. I do not, of course, mean to say that one has to prove that genes can be duplicated. That is well known. But gene duplication alone does not constitute an increase of information in the biocosm or even in the genome of the organism itself. Two copies of today's newspaper contain no more information than one copy. Gene duplication, in any case, cannot play the role of the mutations that could produce the grand sweep of evolution."
Dr. Lee Spetner Ph.D
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
And for my favourite...
"Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most "sacred cow" of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.
What should I do? It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level - having catastrophic impact on countless human lives. Furthermore, every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false. So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud: the Emperor has no clothes!"
Dr John Sanford
Respected Cornell Geneticist, John Sanford,
Rejects Darwinism in His Recent Book:
Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
People these are not zombies at work, they are honest scientist who strive for truth, not magical evo theories. The genomes cant arise by natural processes any more than duplicating and hammering small car parts can create a volkswagon.
Cheers
Posted by: James F | October 31, 2008 2:57 PM
#25
So do you support the global conspiracy theory to explain why no data supporting intelligent design or refuting evolution has been published in peer-reviewed scientific research papers?
Posted by: Johan Swart | October 31, 2008 3:00 PM
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
"Over 5000 Scientists Proclaim their Doubts about Darwin's Theory, Scientific Dissent from Darwinism Continues to Grow, Say Experts." Available on www.dissentfromdarwin.com.
Darwin Skeptics
Compiled by Jerry Bergman PhD.
http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html
What more do you want? Its hard to spread democracy through China, just as its hard to publish real science in an evo (magic) paradigm.
Posted by: JJR | October 31, 2008 3:05 PM
I'm glad I got my basic science education back in the 1980s, before Texas schools deteriorated to this; The worst I had was a biology teacher in summer school (Summer 1987) offering his unsolicited opinion that "abortion was murder"; I had half a mind to get up and walk out of that class, but I stayed in my seat and clenched my teeth. But my other science classes were all solid, evidence-based real science, no pandering to superstition. I just there had been more explicit integration and linkage between math and science in the curriculum. I loved science but hated math--a bad combo.
I totally rocked High School chemistry, but was too chicken to try taking it on the collegiate level one year later.
The overly religious kids were definitely a nerdy subculture nobody wanted to have anything to do with, that much I remember. One of my friends was a sincere Christian, and I scoffed that he took it seriously. He advised he did and to back off, so I dropped the matter. My other High School friends were either atheist/agnostic or fairly weak Christians who rarely if ever attended church anymore by that time. I had stopped going by the end of middle school, and had never really believed (had a Science teacher Dad who helped me develop a pretty good crap-detector early on in life).
I feel bad for kids in Texas today.
Posted by: Darth Wader | October 31, 2008 3:06 PM
Johan, I am going to put your Volkswagen quote on the wikipedia article for a straw man arguement.
There is nothing magical about evoloution, it is a natural, well documented process. A magic sky god farting the world into existence is not.
There are historians who are holocaust deniers, their are physicans who don't believe in germ theory. That doesn't disprove the holocaust or germ theory.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 31, 2008 3:07 PM
Shorter Johan Swart- It is a conspiracy!
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 31, 2008 3:09 PM
Here's my Zombie McCain pic:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dpoem/2983111308/
I do have a very special place in my heart (and brains! my tasty braaaaains) for zombies.
Posted by: Newfie | October 31, 2008 3:10 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-fears-med.html
Ok, the woman lives in a different plane of reality.. wow. just wow.
Posted by: Hap | October 31, 2008 3:12 PM
#25: Perhaps you should start with simpler questions for Mr. Swart. "What is your name?" "How old are you?" "Did you take your meds today, or did you sell them for Mad Dog 20-20 like last time?"
Alternatively one might ask where exactly the honest creationist scientists are. Certainly not doing research, it seems, or publishing papers where people who might use their research would find it. When they show up in places where their evidence (well, if they had any) might do creationists' goals some good, they don't either show themselves to be honest scientists or provide effective evidence for their cause). Twenty million dollars a year should be able to fund some research, if you actually have a hypothesis, or any trace of data, yet the Dishonesty Institute, etc., keep spending money on PR. If you've got the data, why spend the money on PR? (Heck, you wouldn't need to spend your money at all - the NIH, etc., would probably fund you.)
Or perhaps one might ask where the honest creationist advocates are - if you actually find some, one can then ask where the scientists among them doing research on creationism are. Since the first appears to be an empty set, the answer to the second is unavoidable.
Posted by: Johan Swart | October 31, 2008 3:13 PM
lol! Wikipedia is as biased as conservapedia.
Germ theory can be directly observed. evo magic can only be inferred from a sketchy fossil record whose depth has only been scratched (and patterns deduced from this?) and the idea that variation of a species can create novel features or increase genomic information. the genome is degrading, not building. Bacterial resistance is just variation. this isn't hard!
You have to swallow this bitter pill eventually ;)
Posted by: jimellismusic | October 31, 2008 3:13 PM
Head asplode.
j
Posted by: Johan Swart | October 31, 2008 3:16 PM
"Alternatively one might ask where exactly the honest creationist scientists are. Certainly not doing research, it seems, or publishing papers where people who might use their research would find it." -Hap
lol!!! did you not read any of my posts?
Posted by: Valis | October 31, 2008 3:20 PM
@Johan Swart: Jy's op die verkeerde plek hier. Vat jou kakstories en gaan smous dit op 'n ander plek. Niemand hier glo jou fee-verhale nie.
Posted by: The Bob | October 31, 2008 3:28 PM
I suppose we should not be surprised at any "zombie" connection to creationist. The New Testament story of Jesus death and resurrection is one of the first wildly read "zombie" stories. I mean the story does fit the zombie ideal:
1. get killed horribly
2. rise form the dead a while later
3. wander around and visit your "friends"
Posted by: Johan Swart | October 31, 2008 3:28 PM
@Valis: hoekom gee jy om ...?
english is easier to type in on computers, Afrikaans is much better to speak in.
Cheers
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 31, 2008 3:30 PM
Johan Swart @ # 27
When some people believe fervently in an ideology that, for psychological reasons, gives them succour, they quite often won't drop it in favour of a contradictory, evidence-based worldview.
There are bound to be a few clowns who believe in magic at all costs, because they can only conceive of life as having to have some purpose beyond its own self-generated purposes. Feel sorry for them; they've got a psychological flaw.
Posted by: Hap | October 31, 2008 3:34 PM
Read your posts. Missed the honest part, though.
Posted by: Johan Swart | October 31, 2008 3:37 PM
ahahaha!
No one has answered my original posts yet. am i suprised??
Cheers
Posted by: CJO | October 31, 2008 3:38 PM
As usual, we are vindicated. In a similar case where it's lactose instead of citrate the bug was all set up, in fact one might say front loaded, with the capacity to switch over from glucose to lactose digestion.
Ah, pants-loading! Undead science at its brainlessest.
Answer me this, zombie:
For front-loading to be viable, you have to posit a conserved portion of the genome that confers no selective advantage unless and until given the proper environmental conditions. What stops these putative sequences from undergoing drift?
Of course, you can posit some as now unknown regulatory portion of the genome that regulates these sequences. But the regulatory sequences would likewise and perforce What stops these putative sequences from undergoing drift? Posit a double-secret, for Mike Gene's-eyes-only regulatory sequence that confers no selective advantage unless and until given the proper environmental conditions?
Creationism: an infinite regress of fail.
Posted by: abb3w | October 31, 2008 3:39 PM
Johan Swart: "Two copies of today's newspaper contain no more information than one copy."
Actually, that's a mistake under the formal mathematical definitions of "information". There is one more bit of information required; you have to indicate there are two copies, rather than one.
Johan Swart: What more do you want?
Use of competitive testing of hypotheses under Minimum Description Length Induction, assuming only Logic, ZF, and Reality-Evidence relateability as a priori assumptions. AKA, "science".
Posted by: Darth Wader | October 31, 2008 3:40 PM
Johan, what does wikipedia being biased have to with what I said?
I said that your "Volkswagen argument" is a straw man.
The funny thing is he is going to go tell all of his idiot friends how we ganged up on him.
Don't jump in the lion's pit and whine when you get bit!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 31, 2008 3:42 PM
Dr. Lee Spetner Ph.D - Nazi Johan Swart
Whenever you see "Dr. So-and-so PhD", you know you are being addressed by someone entirely ignorant of science.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 31, 2008 3:44 PM
And whenever you come across someone who puts "lol" in their comments when they think they've made a telling point, you know you're dealing with a complete moron. In the case of Johan Swart, a Nazi moron.
Posted by: Johan Swart | October 31, 2008 3:45 PM
Whenever you see "Nazi *insert name*" you know you are confronted by ad-hominem attackers with no argument.
Still, no one has explained to me the origin of genetic material from magic! lol! and where is your bishop, apostle of dawkins -PZ?
Cheers
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 31, 2008 3:49 PM
Dr Wile E Coyote SuperGenius
Just wait till you read his paper in which he describes how vision effects gravity.
Nick, did you need to call Johan a nazi? What proof is there?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 31, 2008 3:51 PM
Johan, just because one person called you a nazi does not mean that your ideas are validated.
Posted by: Darth Wader | October 31, 2008 3:54 PM
Fine I'll respond to your "original post", that you lifed from pro-ID wesites.
Its called punctuated equilibrium. Gradual change punctuated by rapid change.
Your bugs prove nothing.
Also your idea of dice really show your complete ignorance of natural selection.
Posted by: Jello | October 31, 2008 3:55 PM
I have little working knowledge of biology so forgive my ignorance. What I think Johan is saying is that what Lenski observed was that the E-coli were activating suppressed genes that were already present. This as opposed to creating new ones, which would discredit the Lenski results if true. It does not dismiss the possibility of evolving new genes if you expose a life form to a condition it could never have encountered before and it adapts to survive it would have to create new genes thus proving evolution. How then does Johan explain diseases that become resistant to artificially created drugs, in other words, compounds it could never have encountered in nature because they can only be synthesized in a lab and thus would have to create new genes to survive. Now as I said I'm not a biologist so I have no ways to cite examples of this but someone here must.
Posted by: woody | October 31, 2008 3:58 PM
That explains it. The Gablers are UN-dead...
Posted by: Hap | October 31, 2008 3:59 PM
JIATLD: Comments #38 and 39 of the Afterlife post claim that JS is a Holocaust denier - it wouldn't mean he's a Nazi, but the correlation between the set of Holocaust deniers and the set of Nazis (or equivalents) is fairly high. Neither post has a reference, though there is a pointer by JS to a (his?) Facebook page in a later comment.
It isn't proof, though if it were accurate it would be corroborating evidence. Of course, once JS arrived the thread was over, so there's no point in invoking Godwin.
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 31, 2008 4:07 PM
Johan Swart, all the evidence, from fossil distribution, geographical distribution of species, comparative DNA analyses, domestic breeding programs, is consistent with evolution by natural selection.
Evolutionary theory will be falsified only when something inconsistent is discovered, such as a fossil rabbit in pre-Cambrian strata, for instance, or DNA that cannot be linked to other closely related species. Nothing like this has ever been found.
Do yourself a favour & read Darwin's 'On the origin of species'. It should be a humbling experience for you, because it was written by a man who took nothing for granted, who tried to thoroughly appraise arguments against evolution by natural selection, who was thorough & open-minded in his research. Someone who didn't accept what people told him because it fitted his preconceptions.
It's not too late for you to escape the mental straight jacket of religion. You will probably find the World a more beautiful place if you succeed.
Posted by: Ka | October 31, 2008 4:12 PM
Johan Swart at #47 of the Afterlife post.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | October 31, 2008 4:20 PM
Or the Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas strains that digest nylon waste products, which didn't exist before 1950.
Geneticists and microbiologists are trying to understand exactly how the genetic changes occurred between these and their respective cousins who lack the capability to produce the necessary enzymes.
Doubtless, the blithering imbeciles at Disco Institute, including Humpty Dumbski, will again advance the "*bzzzt*, magic!" theory to explain it.
Posted by: prof weird | October 31, 2008 4:28 PM
J Swart :
It was evolution, based on simple mutation/selection. But even THAT level tweaks the IDiots beyond belief.
Too bad the CITRATE utilizing mutation isn't like the lactose mutation, given the OBSERVED FACT that the parental E coli COULD NOT UTILIZE CITRATE AS A CARBON SOURCE.
The bacteria could ALWAYS digest glucose and lactose - what you are blithering about is a regulatory change when both glucose AND lactose are present. Not even close to what happened with the citrate+ mutants.
Standard IDiot handwaving :
Once again, simpleton : the parental E coli COULD NOT UTILIZE CITRATE. Thus claiming the mutations are essentially the same thing demonstrates your blithering ignorance.
You DO know that citrate and lactose ARE TWO DIFFERENT CHEMICALS, right ? Or is such a simple FACT beyond your willfully limited comprehension ?
Too bad the IDiot has confused CITRATE digestion (which the parental E coli COULD NOT USE) with LACTOSE digestion (which is a REGULATORY CHANGE in this case, given the FACT that the bacteria could always digest glucose and lactose before; the question was 'HOW does it regulate the lac operon when both usable sugars are present ?').
True - it takes a dedicated liar to misrepresent things as badly as the Uncommon Dissent folk like to do.
That is, of course, INCORRECT. One mechanism of pesticide resistance is DUPLICATION of a gene. Insects with extra copies LIVE; those without it DIE - as long as the pesticide is present, those duplicate genes represent VITAL information.
How, EXACTLY, did Spetner 'determine' that duplications CAN'T do the job again ? Fiat ? Wishful thinking ?
"Evolution of anti-freeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antartic notothenioid fish", Chen L, DeVries AL, Cheng CC, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 94: 3811-16, April 1997. These fish MODIFIED a trypsinogen into an antifreeze protein THEY DID NOT POSSESS BEFORE. The creotard 'explanation' is what again ?
"Eosinophil cationic protein and eosinophil-derived neurotoxin : Evolution of NOVEL function in a primate ribonuclease family", Rosenberg HF, KD Dyer, J Biol Chem 270(37): 21539-21544, Dec 1995
"Origin of NEW GENES and source for N-terminal domain of the chimerical gene, jingwei, in Drosophila", M Long, W Wang, J Zhang, Gene 238 : 135-141, Sept 1999. ONLY two closely related species of Drosophila have jingwei - it is a chimera of a DUPLICATION of one gene (yellow emperor) with alcohol dehydrogenase spliced into it. jingwei works on long chain alcohols, whereas Adh only works on short chain, and yellow emperor doesn't. (see also "Evolutionary protein functional diversity in new genes of Drosophila", Zhang J, Dean AM, Brunet F, Long M, PNAS 101(46): 16246-50, 16 Nov 2004)
"Selective sweep of a newly evolved sperm-specific gene in Drosophila", Nurminsky DI, et al, Nature 396: 572-575, Dec 1998
"Evolution of novel genes", Long M, Current Opinion n Genetics and Development 11: 673-680, 2001
"A retrotransposon-mediated gene duplication underlies morphological variation in tomato fruit", Xiao H, het al, Science 319: 1527-1530, 14 March 2008
And these GAINS of DNA and function do not qualify as gains of relevant/useful information in the creotard lexicon WHY ?
Posted by: Darth Wader | October 31, 2008 4:39 PM
I guess Johan ran off to tell his buddies, how mean we were to him.
"All I did was try *sniff* and show them that they...they were.... *sniff* wrong, and then they were mean to me. They called me a nazi, and then they said I didn't know *sniff* what I was talking about *a-hooo*, but I've read the Bible and it didn't say *sniff* anything about evolution *a-hooooo* *sniff-sniff*"
Posted by: James F | October 31, 2008 4:46 PM
Johan Swart @ #27
These are two nonsensical and deceptive lists. The Discovery Institute list of publications includes independently-published books, some data-free hypothesis and review papers (including the Meyer paper that was disavowed by the society of the journal in which it appeared due to violation of editorial policies), and a couple papers that don't address intelligent design. As for the "Darwin Doubters" list (full of YECs and OECs by the way), that doesn't provide data either. If this is your argument, you've both demonstrated your ignorance of science and confirmed that no data in support of ID in peer-reviewed scientific research papers exists.
Posted by: raven | October 31, 2008 5:11 PM
Only 7% of the US population buys the "Obama is a Moslem terrorist Arab from Kenya" lie. One assumes this breaks down to 0% Dems. and 14% Theothuglicans.
There is an outlier in this survey. 23% of Texans believe Obama is a Kenyan Arab. This is 3 times the national average.
I hate to say it but maybe the stereotype is true. Texas is filled to the brim with fundie morons.
Posted by: raven | October 31, 2008 5:20 PM
Naw, calling them zombies is just for fun and because it is Halloween. Really, it insults zombies who are at least interesting in a gruesome sort of way.
Christofascist morons who seeks to destroy the USA and head on back to the Dark Ages is much more accurate. Palin is one and, Cthulhu and Yg-Shoggoth willing, will be back freezing her feet off in Alaska next week.
Posted by: raven | October 31, 2008 5:25 PM
What happened to the War on Halloween? I've been busy but haven't noticed any fundies throwing tantrums over Halloween as the Night of the Undead or whatever they froth about.
It's too bad, the War on Halloween was my favorite War on _____ holiday. Oh well, the War on the War on Xmas is coming up soon. So Happy Holidays to everyone.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 31, 2008 5:39 PM
Janine@49, Hap@54,
Can you name any holocaust deniers who are neither Nazis, nor from those Muslim-majority countries where holocaust denial appears frequently in the press? Since Swart is clearly a holocaust denier (his "denial" of this in the other thread was very much of the David Irving type), and is not one of the latter, I deduce him to be one of the former. Also worth bearing in mind that nazism is fairly common among Afrikaaners.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 31, 2008 5:58 PM
Orac has been at this longer than I have, and he says,
It's amazing how blithering ignorance of science and deep-seated bigotry against human beings can so easily go hand-in-hand.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 31, 2008 6:10 PM
Hmm, let's see - they worship a being who, after being pronounced dead, got up and wandered around. That's pretty much the definition of a zombie.
And why wouldn't zombie-worshippers have zombies pushing their anti-science?
Johan Swart wrote:
You use the words - 'honest' and 'science' - I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 31, 2008 6:12 PM
Blake Stacey@65,
The psychological mechanisms are, in part, exactly parallel: both creationism and holocaust denial (and other forms of anti-science denialism) rely on conspiracy theories: the evilutionists/Jews/medical establishment are hiding the truth, supressing "research" that contradicts their claims, etc. Holocaust denial involves an extra layer of evil, of course, in its attack on survivors and relatives of the Nazis' victims - and vey often, the implicit or even explicit threat to repeat the very event that is denied.
Posted by: James F | October 31, 2008 6:16 PM
#65
I guess this particular batch of cranks doesn't link Darwin to Hitler, if they deny the Holocaust....
Posted by: Hap | October 31, 2008 6:28 PM
#64: I don't know any. it's possible that there might not be a connection, though few other groups other than those who either admire the Nazis for what they did or who wish that they could do the same (but who would like to avoid the social consequences of mass murder based on race) (or both) would have the incentive to pretend the Holocaust didn't happen. There were not so long ago some incompetent Nazi-wannabes in S. Africa, so it wouldn't be all that surprising.
Holocaust denial, creationism, and I think either 9/11 truthism or antivaxism makes a wonderful trifecta for JS. It's like a stronger version of the "Bush '04" sticker on lots of cars here - it says "Respect my stupidity" in an aggressive way that implies that either plastic suits or straitjackets (or, better yet, both) will be needed shortly.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 31, 2008 6:31 PM
Nick Gotts,if what Ka at 56 is correct, you are right to call Johan a nazi. You will have no argument from me. If charges of nazism are used, I just want proof. Use of that word is just so cheap and tawdry.
Posted by: Kel | October 31, 2008 6:35 PM
People, people, people, you aren't going to win with Johan - he's grade A moron.
Posted by: Katkinkate | October 31, 2008 6:40 PM
Posted by: Johan Swart @ 42 "ahahaha! No one has answered my original posts yet. am i suprised?? Cheers"
There is nothing there that have not been answered many times before. All you present is glibly-worded opinions in place of evidence. We want references to research, not ID propaganda articles.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 31, 2008 6:46 PM
Kel, thank you. I did not follow into that thread.
Nick, I am sorry.
Together at the count of three.
One!
Two!
Three!
Johan Swart is a nazi!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 31, 2008 6:56 PM
Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker,
Absolutely no problem! You're quite right to question casual use of "nazi", "fascist" etc.
Posted by: ndt | October 31, 2008 6:56 PM
It wouldn't discredit Lenski at all, and in fact would be in line with the conclusions of the paper in question.
Posted by: Alex | October 31, 2008 7:00 PM
One valuable thing I've learned from this blog regarding debate: If the person you are debating has no intention of being convinced that their views may be incorrect, then there can be no debate.
I know that's pretty obvious and mundane. I just would have never bothered to appreciate the value of that thought, but thanks to this blog, I see it in action constantly.
The difficulty in debating those with beliefs, is that they start with the belief, and then search and scheme to find or fabricate support for it. Certainly two scientists can argue over particular results of an experiment. But their arguments will succeed or fail based on the rational and factual analysis of the incremental evidence leading up to the conclusion. So, not only are religidiots not evaluating the incremental evidence correctly, they're method is ass-backwards. It's almost as if they think that they can will their a-priori conclusions as factual. Religion certainly does poison one's rational faculties.
Forgive me for stating the obvious and waxing philosophical.
Posted by: Alex | October 31, 2008 7:03 PM
"Johan Swart is a nazi!"
Shouldn't that be nazi-zombi?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 31, 2008 7:07 PM
There's a difference? Sounds like Department of Redundancy Department.Posted by: Eric Atkinson | October 31, 2008 7:09 PM
"Only 7% of the US population buys the "Obama is a Moslem terrorist Arab from Kenya" lie. One assumes this breaks down to 0% Dems. and 14% Theothuglicans."
Bad assumption.
I doubt Obama even gets 85% of the Democrat vote even if he wins.
"Theothuglicans" How about "Dumbassocrats."
More entertainment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvc0tYG_YpA
Posted by: Alex | October 31, 2008 7:11 PM
"It wouldn't discredit Lenski at all, and in fact would be in line with the conclusions of the paper in question.
I'm not a biologist, but would agree with this.
It seems to me that the goalposts keep moving. I remember a time about 25 years ago when the religious were challenging science to show any kind of adaptation. So now that there's all kinds of experiments and research showing it, they're arguing over the mechanism? The fact is the creature changed. Yes the change was a fairly small one, but it occurred in a very short period of time. So now they concur with micro-evo but not macro-evo. So wait, if a small change happens over a short period, wouldn't one expect enormous changes over vast periods? I guess not, if you believe you were created by a deity. Pathetic.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 31, 2008 7:15 PM
Hi Eric! Don't forget to come back to be laughed at on November 5!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 31, 2008 7:18 PM
I wonder which will come first. EricA being banned for a Baba wannabee impression, or disappearing in shame for being an idiot if Obama wins Tuesday?